Indeed, the theoretical principle of 'defining human interactions via bi-lateral contracts without need for any superimposed legislation' is simply naive and completely impossible in practice in a complex world as this we live in. Little House On The Prairie was probably even a too highly developed society for that to work in practice.

How so?

Do I really have to answer that? You are a smart person, just thinking a bit about it should make it evident. I say again, do not base your Libertarianism on what the current US government is or does, think wider.

Yes you have to because I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Nearly half of Americans get cash from other taxpayers and pay no federal income taxes themselves, so I don't see how this is surprising.

That's a very misleading statistic that Romney misused. Everyone pays taxes. But there are different types of taxes. So what the rich like to do is to take the rich tax, and point out that poor people aren't paying that specific type of taxes. Which they aren't paying because they don't own stocks and bonds.

It's not misleading, and I didn't get it from Romney. It's true and I was very precise with my language. I bolded it and put it in red for you.

And they get cash. From other taxpayers. They go up to them and say "gimme" and the other taxpayers have to give them cash.

Now every time I've confronted you on the fact that you and other Libertarians have benefited from government programs, you act like you're entitled to that because the government has stolen from you. But when "nearly half" of other Americans don't pay a SPECIFIC kind of taxes (and still pay many other forms of taxes), but receive benefits from the government, they are "getting taxes from other taxpayers". Interesting.

Nearly half of Americans get cash from other taxpayers and pay no federal income taxes themselves, so I don't see how this is surprising.

That's a very misleading statistic that Romney misused. Everyone pays taxes. But there are different types of taxes. So what the rich like to do is to take the rich tax, and point out that poor people aren't paying that specific type of taxes. Which they aren't paying because they don't own stocks and bonds.

It's not misleading, and I didn't get it from Romney. It's true and I was very precise with my language. I bolded it and put it in red for you.

And they get cash. From other taxpayers. They go up to them and say "gimme" and the other taxpayers have to give them cash.

Now every time I've confronted you on the fact that you and other Libertarians have benefited from government programs, you act like you're entitled to that because the government has stolen from you. But when "nearly half" of other Americans don't pay a SPECIFIC kind of taxes (and still pay many other forms of taxes), but receive benefits from the government, they are "getting taxes from other taxpayers". Interesting.

I stated a fact in response to your article about states receiving more than they pay. That was all. You're welcome to read into that as you wish.

I think what's really interesting about looking into individual states and trying to figure out why some of them get more than they pay into the system is that it seems to be backwards from what the Conservatives are trying to tell us. The Conservatives are trying to tell us that if you coddle rich people and refuse to help those "takers" (their word for poor people), the economy will do well. And yet it's the states that tax the rich and help the poor that seem to be doing well. Hmm...what does that sound like...oh yeah, it sounds like Jesus, the original Keynesian:"Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken
together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the
measure you use, it will be measured to you."(Luke 6:38)

Except Jesus wasn't talking about economics. He was telling people not to be hypocrites.

37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

38 Give,
and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken
together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the
same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

39 And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?

40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

42 Either
how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote
that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is
in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine
own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in
thy brother's eye.

Except Jesus wasn't talking about economics. He was telling people not to be hypocrites.

Now cross reference this passage with Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos...Luke 6:20-26, Luke 4:18...oooh, you ever heard of the "Year of Jubilee"? Try looking at all the passages that talk about the poor, and then tell me that if you believe in the Bible, that the government shouldn't help the poor. Isaiah and Jeremiah especially - they specifically talk about how God views the governments that refuse to do anything about the poor in their nation.

Except Jesus wasn't talking about economics. He was telling people not to be hypocrites.

Now cross reference this passage with Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos...Luke 6:20-26, Luke 4:18...oooh, you ever heard of the "Year of Jubilee"? Try looking at all the passages that talk about the poor, and then tell me that if you believe in the Bible, that the government shouldn't help the poor. Isaiah and Jeremiah especially - they specifically talk about how God views the governments that refuse to do anything about the poor in their nation.

I always took the sum of these passages to mean that I, myself should do everything to help the poor. To the extent that we require a government to help the poor means that not enough people are heeding the message the Bible is imparting.

Well, that's a very mysterious passage to many and I could get into what I think it means, but then I'd have to get into many other concepts that appear in the Bible in order to deconstruct a lot of what I feel is bad thinking and misreadings that have led to doctrines that cannot be logically defended without throwing out much of the Bible. The short version of what you'd get: I'm what you'd call a "Universalist", though I prefer the more descriptive "Ultimate Redemptionist". There are a number of arguments I could make to support that belief, but the quickest way to the "why" would be 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4. If you believe God is "sovereign" or "omnipotent", I can't for the life of me see how you can logically defend a belief in eternal conscious torment in light of those two verses. There are many other verses that would cause logical problems with that belief as well, but I'll stick to the short answer. So basically when I puzzle over the verse that talks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, I think it's talking about one who condemns others and in so doing is unable to forgive himself because he knows deep inside that he's no better. And keep in mind that the word that is translated as "eternal" when the verse says "eternal sin" is actually more like "age long", as it is simply indefensible to say that aion means "eternal" or "forever" (there are too many other verses that use the same word that are clearly not talking about eternity).

I always took the sum of these passages to mean that I, myself should do everything to help the poor. To the extent that we require a government to help the poor means that not enough people are heeding the message the Bible is imparting.

Did he say anything about nuclear warfare and what to do
about people leaking CIA secrets on the Internet ?

Nothing specifically about the "nuclear" part of that, but I see his whole life as a way to contradict our way of thinking about how kingdoms advance. He talked a lot about the "kingdom of God" and I think his life was a demonstration of how that kingdom works, and that kingdom was not inaugurated through violence, but through the ultimate act of giving. So suffice it to say: I don't think he was a fan of warfare at all.

Well, that's a very mysterious passage to many and I could get into what I think it means, but then I'd have to get into many other concepts that appear in the Bible in order to deconstruct a lot of what I feel is bad thinking and misreadings that have led to doctrines that cannot be logically defended without throwing out much of the Bible. The short version of what you'd get: I'm what you'd call a "Universalist", though I prefer the more descriptive "Ultimate Redemptionist". There are a number of arguments I could make to support that belief, but the quickest way to the "why" would be 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4. If you believe God is "sovereign" or "omnipotent", I can't for the life of me see how you can logically defend a belief in eternal conscious torment in light of those two verses. There are many other verses that would cause logical problems with that belief as well, but I'll stick to the short answer. So basically when I puzzle over the verse that talks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, I think it's talking about one who condemns others and in so doing is unable to forgive himself because he knows deep inside that he's no better. And keep in mind that the word that is translated as "eternal" when the verse says "eternal sin" is actually more like "age long", as it is simply indefensible to say that aion means "eternal" or "forever" (there are too many other verses that use the same word that are clearly not talking about eternity).

I was just being facetious. I really don't care about the advice of fictional people.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

I was just being facetious. I really don't care about the advice of fictional people.

You're entitled to believe whatever you like, and it's really none of my business - but you honestly believe he was "fictional" as in "never existed"? I'd hope you'd at least be consistent and also say that you believe George Washington was a fictional character. Because if the belief that there was actually a historical person that the stories of Jesus represent is questionable, than the similar belief in George Washington is equally questionable. I am absolutely open to questioning details about the stories and talking about some of the interesting historical findings on whom he was, but to say he never existed opens us up to a "matrix" like system of belief that maybe no one we've ever heard of existed.

I always took the sum of these passages to mean that I, myself should do everything to help the poor. To the extent that we require a government to help the poor means that not enough people are heeding the message the Bible is imparting.

Indeed, the theoretical principle of 'defining human interactions via bi-lateral contracts without need for any superimposed legislation' is simply naive and completely impossible in practice in a complex world as this we live in. Little House On The Prairie was probably even a too highly developed society for that to work in practice.

How so?

Do I really have to answer that? You are a smart person, just thinking a bit about it should make it evident. I say again, do not base your Libertarianism on what the current US government is or does, think wider.

Yes you have to because I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

The world today is a bit more complicated than 2 people making agreements... all too often (not to say in the vast majority of cases) the agreements between those 2 people will directly or indirectly affect other people, and sorry but the principle that 'those agreements should not cause aggression to others' is too vague for me, what constitutes aggression? if you own a plot in front of my nice villa and decide to build a 20 story tall apartments building right in front of my lawn because you do with your property whatever you want, does that constitute aggression to me? if two gay boys make love on the beach in front of your children playing in the sand, does that constitute aggression to you? if your neighbour plays Celine Dion at full volume at 3 o'clock in the night, does that constitute aggression to you?

You can not agree with your truck builder how wide and long and big you want your trailer truck to be. Someone has to fix rules for how wide, long and heavy a lorry can be because roads and turns and bridges need to be build. Someone has to fix rules for what are the minimum requirements for you to be considered a diplomate mathematician.

Someone needs to fix what the dimensions of a seafreight contrainer must be, because your cranes must be able to handle the Chinese containers and possibly you will appreciate that the Chinese can handle yours.

Someone needs to fix what is the acceptable level of alcohol in the blood of a driver, because if ever your son will have an accident (I hope never!!!) you will want to know if you can blame the other driver as the cause.

There need to be rules defining what can you include in your agreements with others and what not, in order to preserve some minimum civilization in the world.

The list of things that could never be agreed bi-laterally by just 2 people and need common regulation to avoid chaos and endless violent conflicts is literally endless, unless you live in Little House On The Prairie.

The world today is a bit more complicated than 2 people making agreements

Sure. But not more complicated than two parties making agreements which essentially encompasses all economic activity.

Gerinski wrote:

all too often (not to say in the vast majority of cases) the agreements between those 2 people will directly or indirectly affect other people, and sorry but the principle that 'those agreements should not cause aggression to others' is too vague for me, what constitutes aggression? if you own a plot in front of my nice villa and decide to build a 20 story tall apartments building right in front of my lawn because you do with your property whatever you want, does that constitute aggression to me? if two gay boys make love on the beach in front of your children playing in the sand, does that constitute aggression to you? if your neighbour plays Celine Dion at full volume at 3 o'clock in the night, does that constitute aggression to you?

I can give you my supposed answers to all these things (and will I guess), but that's completely irrelevant and means nothing. These are issues that would be left to the courts to decide, just as they are today, and just as they have been just about always. Libertarianism isn't changing anything here, except removing certain laws or (in just my case out of those in this thread) changing exactly what we mean by courts.

Answers:1) It really depends on a lot of stuff but with just the info you've given me, you don't own a view. You don't own property value. So tough cookies?2) No. If the person who owns the beach allows it, then it's fine. If the person who owns the beach does not, then the owners has a claim against them, and I would possible have a claim against the owner of the property. (Was the gay part really needed there?)3) Yes. That would be a pretty clear infringement upon nuisance law which has a long common law history.

You can not agree with your truck builder how wide and long and big you want your trailer truck to be. Someone has to fix rules for how wide, long and heavy a lorry can be because roads and turns and bridges need to be build.

That would be the people who build the roads. Some roads have a maximal clearance of 16 feet and others of twelve feet. It's the same principle. Nothing changes here.

Someone has to fix rules for what are the minimum requirements for you to be considered a diplomate mathematician.

Same as it is now. Employers determine that. Institutions that grant degrees determine that. The latter becomes possible less standardized but nothing really changes.

Someone needs to fix what the dimensions of a seafreight contrainer must be, because your cranes must be able to handle the Chinese containers and possibly you will appreciate that the Chinese can handle yours.

Yeah. The people who own the cranes would determine that. Some elevators carry up to 900 pounds. Some carry up to 1600. Same thing. Doesn't really change.

Someone needs to fix what is the acceptable level of alcohol in the blood of a driver, because if ever your son will have an accident (I hope never!!!) you will want to know if you can blame the other driver as the cause.

Seems like something that road owners, or insurance companies, or licensing companies, or just general law enforcement would be in the habit of deciding, as they already do.

There need to be rules defining what can you include in your agreements with others and what not, in order to preserve some minimum civilization in the world.

Yes. The rule is whatever people agree to free of duress blah blah blah is okay. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Care to be more specific?

The list of things that could never be agreed bi-laterally by just 2 people and need common regulation to avoid chaos and endless violent conflicts is literally endless, unless you live in Little House On The Prairie.

You haven't demonstrated anything and it would be hard to do, since this is the way things work. Things are agreed upon by two parties. This is the economy. This is modern life.

And what's up with the Little House on the Prairie thing? Is this a common metaphor? Wasn't that show set during the Guilded Age making it a pretty bad metaphor if it is commonly used?

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

I was just being facetious. I really don't care about the advice of fictional people.

You're entitled to believe whatever you like, and it's really none of my business - but you honestly believe he was "fictional" as in "never existed"? I'd hope you'd at least be consistent and also say that you believe George Washington was a fictional character. Because if the belief that there was actually a historical person that the stories of Jesus represent is questionable, than the similar belief in George Washington is equally questionable. I am absolutely open to questioning details about the stories and talking about some of the interesting historical findings on whom he was, but to say he never existed opens us up to a "matrix" like system of belief that maybe no one we've ever heard of existed.

I'm sure some person lived which served as a basis for Jesus, but since he has nothing to do with the religious Jesus, I think I made a fair statement.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum